Nowadays this sounds like kicking down doors that are
already open. There are even proof assistants around now,
that default to constructive logics, like for example Coq.

Where did you spend the last years, under a rock? Don't
look at Dan Christensen, who still fights for classical logic,
you might find a lot of brain fart numbers there,

but otherwise, the world didn't stand still.

bassam king karzeddin schrieb am Donnerstag, 27. Juni 2019 um 14:30:54 UTC+2:
> 1) Real numbers are only those constructible numbers that represent distinctly existing distances, where the rest are brain fart numbers

On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 3:10:42 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock (Mr. Collapse) wrote:
> Nowadays this sounds like kicking down doors that are
> already open. There are even proof assistants around now,
> that default to constructive logics, like for example Coq.
>
> Where did you spend the last years, under a rock? Don't
> look at Dan Christensen, who still fights for classical logic,
> you might find a lot of brain fart numbers there,
>
> but otherwise, the world didn't stand still.

Sadly for you, constructive logic is rarely if ever used in math textbooks these days. Must be frustrating as hell for all you. Deal with it, Mr. Collapse.

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Constructive logic is used all over the place. Only you
are on the level of a monkey, that you don't understand
the concept of constructive logic, which was already

present during the Greeks, when they distinguished
constructive constructions, as those using straightedge and
compass, from those using other means:

"Hippocrates and Menaechmus showed that the volume
of the cube could be doubled by finding the intersections
of hyperbolas and parabolas, but these cannot be
constructed by straightedge and compass."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straightedge_and_compass_construction

Lord Brouncker (1620-1686), the first president of the Royal
Society of London, gave (without proof around 1659) the first
recorded infinite continued fraction [3, p. 2] for π:
https://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/pubs/amm_supplements/Monthly_Reference_11.pdf

Can you show double the cube is not possible in DC Proof,
basically that 2^(1/3) is not some sort of square root. Or
can you show that π is transcendental, there are some

early demonstration that used continued fraction, in an
argument that π is transcendental. π is transcendental implies,
that even we could double the cube, we can still not

square the circle. LoL

Dan Christensen schrieb am Samstag, 5. August 2023 um 03:37:40 UTC+2:
> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 3:10:42 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock (Mr. Collapse) wrote:
> > Nowadays this sounds like kicking down doors that are
> > already open. There are even proof assistants around now,
> > that default to constructive logics, like for example Coq.
> >
> > Where did you spend the last years, under a rock? Don't
> > look at Dan Christensen, who still fights for classical logic,
> > you might find a lot of brain fart numbers there,
> >
> > but otherwise, the world didn't stand still.
> Sadly for you, constructive logic is rarely if ever
used in math textbooks these days. Must be frustrating
as hell for all you. Deal with it, Mr. Collapse.
>
> Dan
>
> Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 10:38:08 AM UTC+3, Mild Shock wrote:
> Constructive logic is used all over the place. Only you
> are on the level of a monkey, that you don't understand
> the concept of constructive logic, which was already
>
> present during the Greeks, when they distinguished
> constructive constructions, as those using straightedge and
> compass, from those using other means:
>
> "Hippocrates and Menaechmus showed that the volume
> of the cube could be doubled by finding the intersections
> of hyperbolas and parabolas, but these cannot be
> constructed by straightedge and compass."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straightedge_and_compass_construction
>
> Lord Brouncker (1620-1686), the first president of the Royal
> Society of London, gave (without proof around 1659) the first
> recorded infinite continued fraction [3, p. 2] for π:
> https://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/pubs/amm_supplements/Monthly_Reference_11.pdf
>
> Can you show double the cube is not possible in DC Proof,
> basically that 2^(1/3) is not some sort of square root. Or
> can you show that π is transcendental, there are some
>
> early demonstration that used continued fraction, in an
> argument that π is transcendental. π is transcendental implies,
> that even we could double the cube, we can still not
>
> square the circle. LoL
> Dan Christensen schrieb am Samstag, 5. August 2023 um 03:37:40 UTC+2:
> > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 3:10:42 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock (Mr. Collapse) wrote:
> > > Nowadays this sounds like kicking down doors that are
> > > already open. There are even proof assistants around now,
> > > that default to constructive logics, like for example Coq.
> > >
> > > Where did you spend the last years, under a rock? Don't
> > > look at Dan Christensen, who still fights for classical logic,
> > > you might find a lot of brain fart numbers there,
> > >
> > > but otherwise, the world didn't stand still.
> > Sadly for you, constructive logic is rarely if ever
> used in math textbooks these days. Must be frustrating
> as hell for all you. Deal with it, Mr. Collapse.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> > Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Still Mild Shock is believing blindly in the existence of the circle as a true existing mathematical object, where the truth it doesn't exist despite seeing it in the mere eyes of human ability

This is infact the most unsolved tragedy of All humans & Animals as well

Where it is extreemly too difficult to explain to humans

But, fortunately & few recognizable academics started recently to realize openly this hidden untold truth which was the true reason behind ALL such existing conflicts among world academics not only of mathematics

Where the untold truth would be spoken finally soon by the future advanced & independent Artificial Intelligence & be inforced upon the cluless forcibly without any regards or respect to their beloved human orinted & false axioms

In short, an object that doesn't absolutely exist can't be hence squared

As simple as it is

Bassam Karzeddin

On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 10:38:08 AM UTC+3, Mild Shock wrote:
> Constructive logic is used all over the place. Only you
> are on the level of a monkey, that you don't understand
> the concept of constructive logic, which was already
>
> present during the Greeks, when they distinguished
> constructive constructions, as those using straightedge and
> compass, from those using other means:
>
> "Hippocrates and Menaechmus showed that the volume
> of the cube could be doubled by finding the intersections
> of hyperbolas and parabolas, but these cannot be
> constructed by straightedge and compass."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straightedge_and_compass_construction
>
> Lord Brouncker (1620-1686), the first president of the Royal
> Society of London, gave (without proof around 1659) the first
> recorded infinite continued fraction [3, p. 2] for π:
> https://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/pubs/amm_supplements/Monthly_Reference_11.pdf
>
> Can you show double the cube is not possible in DC Proof,
> basically that 2^(1/3) is not some sort of square root. Or
> can you show that π is transcendental, there are some
>
> early demonstration that used continued fraction, in an
> argument that π is transcendental. π is transcendental implies,
> that even we could double the cube, we can still not
>
> square the circle. LoL
> Dan Christensen schrieb am Samstag, 5. August 2023 um 03:37:40 UTC+2:
> > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 3:10:42 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock (Mr. Collapse) wrote:
> > > Nowadays this sounds like kicking down doors that are
> > > already open. There are even proof assistants around now,
> > > that default to constructive logics, like for example Coq.
> > >
> > > Where did you spend the last years, under a rock? Don't
> > > look at Dan Christensen, who still fights for classical logic,
> > > you might find a lot of brain fart numbers there,
> > >
> > > but otherwise, the world didn't stand still.
> > Sadly for you, constructive logic is rarely if ever
> used in math textbooks these days. Must be frustrating
> as hell for all you. Deal with it, Mr. Collapse.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> > Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

So, All the human established & invented logic doesn't stand firm against the non-existing angles issue for example!

So, would independent clever & unbiased wise humans (if existing) try to review their own inhireted logic & point out where & when did they go astray?

They can take the help from supercomputers & the Artificial Intelligence nowadays! Sure

BKK